Next step for American Fork River: Measure the risks with an eye toward spring

SALT LAKE CITY — State water quality officials will insist on an action plan to prevent further contamination of the American Fork River from lead-laden sediment that killed thousands of fish in a two-mile stretch.

That plan will be put together by the North Utah Water Conservancy District with an eye toward preventing sediment from being stirred up by rain or spring runoff, said Walt Baker, director of the Utah Division of Water Quality.

He said the division also expects to get an estimate from project engineers on the amount of sediment that washed into the river as a result of the Tibble Fork Dam's $7.3 million rehabilitation and expansion project.

"We have moved sediment from point A to point B over a six-mile expanse," Baker said. "There needs to be an assessment of how bad it is and what steps need to be taken to remediate it."

Department of Environmental Quality

Alan Matheson – Executive Director

Brad T Johnson – Deputy Director

DEQ Water Samples Show Metals Contamination in American Fork River

Public Cautioned to Avoid Sediments

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah health officials are cautioning the public, especially children, to stay out of the American Fork River from Tibble Fork Reservoir and downstream after water samples analyzed by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) found elevated levels of lead in the sediments. (emphasis added)

The samples taken above and below Tibble Fork Dam on Tuesday showed elevated levels of metals in the sediment, but lower concentrations in the water.

As a precaution, the Utah County Health Department (UCHD) plans to post “caution” signs along the river, urging people to avoid wading in the river and walking along the banks due to the potentially toxic sediments that were unleashed Saturday from a dam rehabilitation project.

UCHD also advises that if the members of the public experience exposure, or come into contact with the river bank sediment, that the sediment be washed from all skin, clothing, or equipment to avoid possible contamination of automobiles or homes.

Since elevated concentration of metals appear mostly in the sediment, not the water, agricultural users can continue to use the river for irrigation. Based on the sampling results, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food issued a statement explaining that it does not believe the water poses a risk for livestock or crop irrigation.

Drinking water is not impacted because the river is not used for culinary purposes. Springs used by American Fork residents for drinking water are not connected to the impacted areas. However, American Fork City is testing the springs as a precaution. At this time, there is no indication that any culinary water was impacted.

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) is urging anglers to practice “catch and release” as a precaution. DWR biologists collected live fish from the creeks to determine whether the sediment releases had any long term effects. Biologists will work with DEQ and the Utah Department of Health to monitor potential impacts to aquatic wildlife and to ensure that fish are safe to consume.

DEQ’s Division of Water Quality took water column and sediment samples from four locations, including above and below the reservoir and mouth of American Fork Canyon. Two data sondes have been deployed above and below the dam to continuously monitor water quality parameters.

Located in American Fork Canyon, Tibble Fork Reservoir is fed by the American Fork River, Deer Creek, and Tibble Fork Creek. The reservoir is a popular fishing, hiking, canoeing, and boating area.

Subject: DEQ Water Samples Show Metals Contamination in American Fork River

To: All Cedar Hills Residents

Dear Resident,

During the past week several reports have surfaced regarding discharge flows from the Tibble Fork Dam Rehabilitation Project. On Friday, August 26, 2016, national, state, and local leaders held a meeting to discuss water sample data from the American Fork River, resulting from the Tibble Fork discharge event. The following news release from the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality summarizes the potential health risks and includes citizen advisories for contact with discharge sediment.

As an added precaution, the City of Cedar Hills has eliminated all irrigation water in the pressurized irrigation system that is typically received through the American Fork River. Although the city’s pressurized irrigation system received a very minor amount of flow from the American Fork River, the city's public works department has now shut off all incoming flows to our system. The irrigation system will be supplied with flows from other sources until further notice. Please note that the irrigation system may contain limited amounts of American Fork River water for the next 24 hours. We invite residents to conserve irrigation water and heed the recommendations of the State Department of Environmental Quality as noticed in the news release.

Mayor Gygi, you have some responsibility here because of your tacit support of Snowbird's secretive operations. Will you now disavow Snowbird and its continuing efforts to impose on our American Fork Canyon and water supply? Remember your comments at AF High School one year ago, July 1, 2015…?

You’ve NEVER publicly chastised Snowbird for their abuse of the public disclosure process, and fought in behalf of The People you are supposed to protect and serve. Will you do so now? Mayor Gygi, to whom is your allegiance; the greedy Snowbird owners or the good folks living in Cedar Hills? Please call for Snowbird to immediately and proactively clean up its own toxic mine tailings and Tibble Fork Reservoir bed, before it’s too late.

If not, maybe it is time for you to reconsider the calls for your resignation.

Ken Cromar – researcher for

Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government

former elected Cedar Hills Councilman (1994 to 2000)

PRODUCER / DIRECTOR

Blue Moon Productions

801-785-5900

_________

NOTE: The email was CC'd to the CH Council, City Manager and following Mayors & Councils and news outlets :

"More On the Alcohol Issue"

Last week at the city council meeting, there was an agenda item #15 of 20 agenda items that was listed as "Review/Action to amend the Cedar Hills Grill Concession Agreement". This ammendment to the agreement changes the wording on the concessions contract with Sumting Asian LCC from "Tenant may not serve alcohol on the premises" to "Tenant may serve alcohol on the premises".

With this small change in wording, the city rec center grill will now be serving alcohol to the general public. Also, this changes the golf course to where golfers now have the stamp of approval of the city to drink alcohol on the golf course and can buy it from the grill.

The city council voted 4-1 to approve this change with my vote as the dissenting vote. The interesting thing about this item is there was not a single resident comment before the vote. There are several residents that said that they wanted to be there if they only knew the change was about alcohol. Although the main topic was alcohol, the word alcohol is not mentioned in the agenda until page 27. It is clear that the subject of alcohol should have been mentioned in the agenda. Here is the link to the agenda:

For historical perspective, back in 2001 when the city was trying to decide whether to issue a revenue bond to finance the golf course, Mayor Sears circulated a flyer listing several inaccuracies that had been communicated to residents. One of those inaccuracies was titled, "Alochol and Sunday Operation". He said "City ownership of the course is the only way to insure control of hours of operation, types of beverages sold or other activities at the golf course." Those that were against alcohol being sold at the course were assured that the city would not sell alcohol. This is one of the reasons why it has been 15 years since this vote until it has finally been approved to sell alcohol at the golf course.

Mr. Cromar, thank you for your interest in our city. I will answer your questions but feel free to reach out to the city manager or city attorney for more information. Yes, the city council did vote to approve the third party vendor who runs the grill to be able to sell beer in the grill by a 4 to 1 vote, Mr. Crawley voted against it. I do not write the agendas for the council meetings, a staff member writes the agenda language. I do know that some people are against alcohol at the golf course and grill and some people are for it. I did step out of the meeting to take care of some other city business, there was a house in Cedar Hills that recently almost burned down, the father rushed in to save his son and both were injured but alive. The fire chiefs were meeting with the father and his wife, they invited me and I was gone for about 30 minutes. The rest of your questions relate to my feelings on the matter, I am not in favor of what the council did, I would not have voted for this if I were to have voted. As you know, the mayor only votes to break a tie which this vote was not. I have stated publicly that I don't think the city should ever get a liquor license and sell alcohol in the rec center. The ordinance that was passed is not allowing Cedar Hills city to sell the beer but I am still not in favor of it. I don't believe much revenue if any at all will go to the city, the revenue goes to the grill vendor but one could make the argument that the city may attract more golfers who like to have a beer after golfing. People that were in favor of the vote presume that all drinkers are responsible which is not true, those who were against it presume that all those who drink beer are not responsible and this is not true either. Finally I believe that you know what your rights are and actions available to you are now that the council has acted.

Thanks for your response [above], but unfortunately, you failed to answer some key questions:

1.) Did you write up the July 19th Council agenda doc? If not, who did please?

As you know Mayor, you are responsible for the Agenda, regardless of who may draft it for you. Why are you throwing some unnamed city employee under the bus? This is your responsibility. You didn’t do your job. Own it.

2.) Was this omission of the subject of “Alcohol” done to hide or deceive the public regarding this important community issue?

Whether you take responsibility for your actions or not, the result is the same — an attempt to put alcohol in at the Family Rec Center — without CH residents knowing it was on your agenda. You deceived CH residents when you left “Alcohol” out of the Agenda #15 description, thus secretly promoted alcohol at our “Family" facility.

3.) Would you like to see this action repaired with a fully informed Public?

Do you want to take responsibility for your leadership and public disclosure fail, will you STOP the contract process before it gets signed, and start the public process over? Yes or no?

City Council members, you too should have known better. Reportedly Councilman Crawley and City Manger David Bunker encouraged the Council to table this issue until properly noticed to the public. You went ahead and voted for this anyway. This is not ethically defensible. But, good news! it’s not too late. You can still fix this error. Please be honest with CH residents. Please be fair. Start the process over and be responsible. If you don’t, please consider this headline:

Mayor, in conclusion, your email response is unsatisfactory. It is obviously duplicitous of you to write, "I have stated publicly that I don't think the city should ever get a liquor license and sell alcohol in the rec center.” when you simultaneously facilitate alcohol at what was supposed to be the FAMILY REC CENTER without informing CH residents.

It has come to my attention that at Tuesday, July 19th Council meeting that ALCOHOL sales were approved for the grill on a 4 to 1 vote.

Would you kindly answer these questions:

Is the above true?

Did this action take place under Agenda item #15 which reads, “Review/Action to Amend the Cedar Hills Grill Concession Agreement”? (see copy below)

Did you write up the July 19th Council agenda doc? If not, who did please?

Were you aware of the community are deeply concerned about alcohol at the golf course and grill? (Please see May 2001 flyer, the third item “ALCOHOL AND SUNDAY OPERATION" in the attached flyer used by then Mayor Sears and Council to persuade the community to support the push to buy the golf course.)

If you were aware of public interest on this issue, why would the main subject — ALCOHOL — not be included in the Agenda item #15 subject description?

Was this omission of the subject of “Alcohol” done to hide or deceive the public regarding this important community issue?

Is it true that just prior item #15 was discussed by the Council, you left? And returned right after the vote?

Can you understand why so many of us have so little trust in our local government with it’s constant drip, drip, drip of evolving deceit and dishonesty?

Would you like to see this action repaired with a fully informed Public?

Would you like to be held personally responsible for any golf course / clubhouse alcohol related deaths?

Will you commit to do all in your power to stop this action until a proper Public notificationcan be made, public comment taken and a new vote Council taken please?

If so, thank you. If not, why not, please?

Please respond briefly and directly, at your earliest convenience. The CC’d Council members may also add their answers by separate email if desired.

On Tuesday the City Council voted to amend the Cedar Hills Concessions Agreement to allow alcohol sales in our rec center. There was a good debate among City Council members, but no public comment. The vote was 4 to 1 in favor of allowing the sale of alcohol at the grill.

I was disappointed that fewer residents were not aware of this issue. I was in charge of the meeting in the absence of the Mayor and I strongly encouraged the Council to postpone a vote until it was noticed in a manner that informed the public regarding the true nature of the change. It was listed as item number 15 in the agenda as "Review/Action to Amend the Cedar Hills Grill Concessions Agreement". There was no reference to alcohol that could have informed the residents of the nature of the change in the agreement. Unfortunately very few residents were aware of such an important topic early enough before the meeting to allow them time to make it to the meeting. I was disappointed that it passed, but even more disappointed that it passed under the radar of most residents.

An elder resident of Provo recently attempted to collect peitition sigantures on public proerty, working to put the "BRT: public transtit funding project on the ballot for the public to vote on. Police arrived and forced im to leave the (public) property, violating his rights. Watch Nichelle's video for the details.

For more info on this and other Libertas Institute highlighted subjects, please see…

Cedar Hills has had similar First Amendment abuses by government officials over citizens simply exercising their Constitutionally acknowledged and protected rights. In growing numbers, government officials have grown ignorant to the meaning of their Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitutions of the US and State of Utah. The result is too often abuse of power against the rights of individual they ironically promised to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

See other posts regarding First Amendment abuse in Cedar Hills see various report links at…

April 18, 2016 – Legal billing records were sought via email when a City Council report on March 1st showed huge increases in legal expenses of $154,558 in 2012 and $233,868 in 2013.

This is important because during 2012 and 2013, Mayor Gygi and many Cedar Hills Councilmembers – particularly Council member Jenney Rees in her posts and city PR reports – falsely declared that Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government's request for public records was mostly responsible for such high legal bills.

The Council was constantly reminded that, 1.) CHCRG did not have a VOTE on how the City spends its money, and 2.) because the simple fulfillment of the GRAMA requests — which is what the State Records Committee required of the City anyway — was an unnecessary legal expense if GRAMA law had been simply been obeyed.

The following email was sent to Councilman Rob Crawley, and CC'd to City Attorney David Shaw, seeking his help obtaining billing legal records and internal Council investigation….

The legal fees for 2013 seem exorbitant at $233,868 under then attorney Eric Johnson. No doubt this caught your attention? Can you explain for me the breakdown on legal fee needs that could rack up such high numbers please? More abuse of other CH residents with maligning of character libel by the attorney as with the $154,558 in 2012? Your help understanding this matter would be appreciated.

I've CC'd the current attorney Mr. Shaw, on the chance he may already have that information at hand to save your research time.

Thank you!

Ken Cromar – researcher for

Cedar Hills Citizens for Responsible Government

former elected Cedar Hills Councilman

A response to this request did not come forward. A follow up email reminder was sent July 8, 2016, and requested again via phone yesterday. A response was promised.

Please see February 13, 2013 CHCRG post on the subject reported by Salt Lake Tribune …